Selecting a second film body with good viewfinder

I agree on the F2 -- everything you need, not much you don't.

 

One thing you don't need is its very old light meter that may not be repairable. The camera, and its light meter, has not been manufactured since approximately 1980 - 37-years ago.

When the F4 was my primary body, I was quite happy with it, from 1990 to 1997. I don't mind the weight and enjoyed the rugged body. AF was in its infancy anyway.

 

However, in late 1997, I bought an F5 and quickly got used to the main and sub-command dials. In 1998 I added a couple of AF-S lenses and never look back. A year later, I realized that I was so used to the command dials that I didn't want to use the F4 or N8008 any more. Another year later, Nikon announced the D1; while that technology was also in its infancy, it was quite clear that digital photography was coming. In 1999 I bought an F100 as a "baby F5" so that I had two up-to-date film bodies, and I was quite sure that the F100 would be the last Nikon film SLR I would buy.

One thing you don't need is its very old light meter...

Mine works just fine -- if it didn't, I could use one of my light meters, or since I use it exclusively for for Monochrome,even an old fashioned exposure card. A good old camera, and there are still people who fix them, but in any case, I would certainly use my digital Nikons for anything "important" -- cases where others are depending on me for results. . Film is something I do mostly for fun.

FWIW, the late Galen Rowell had more or less switched to an F100(and an N80 for back-up) when he died, but still kept his F4 around. Thom Hogan has a story on his site about Rowell's F100 breaking the rewind fork during his first outing with it, and nearly tossing it to go back to his trusty F4.

 

As F2 meters go-I've had a few "jumpy" and/or innacurate DP-1s that I fixed by putting some carbon tet on the ring resistor and working the controls vigorously. I've not run across a DP-11(F2A finder) with issues, but given its similarity to the DP-1 I expect the same procedure would work. Silicon photocells as used in the F2SB and F2AS are pretty well bullet proof, and those don't have galvanometers to go bad. There's a guy in England who has had replacements for the printed circuit board manufactured if you've used the camera so much as to wear the contacts on that board out.

The Nikon F4 is the camera responsible for pros switched to Canon.

Those who wanted AF switch to Canon. So to me the F4 really had no place.

Those are entirely different things - don't blame the F4 for Nikon's poor choice of screw-driven AF.

Canon started putting the AF motor in the lenses and completely beat Nikon to the punch.

Shun's right - the reason for pros switching wasn't so much the F4 as it was the fact that Canon came out with a superior AF system.

 

but the F3 actually is my least favorite "F" series camera.

Once again, I think we've established that you really don't like the F4, but that doesn't make it a bad camera.

Both have by now been thoroughly established. Horses for courses.

 

Then there's also the issue of the meter read-out. The little LCD in the corner of the screen isn't as easy to see as the big one in the bottom of the F4 finder. Also, I find the F3 all but useless in the dark. The little button on the side of the finder is awkward to reach and I find it too dim to help that much. By contrast, the green LEDs on the F4 are nice and bright without being obtrusive, and can be set to turn on and stay on with a tap on the shutter button. In addition to legibility, in manual mode you get an actual scale rather than the tiny + and - in the F3 finder.

In all fairness, the LCD display in the F3 was a novelty when the F3 was introduced. The placement totally made sense since it was right next to the ADR - no need to hunt around for the exposure info around the viewfinder like one had to in, for example, the FM. Since both the metering cell and the display where in the body, the F3 was the only single-digit F that gave automatic exposure and readout with all viewfinders. Given how little space there is on the body itself, a larger display like the one in the F4 wasn't possible. Nikon gave a life time of 7 years for that LCD - mine still works fine after 35!

The Nikon F3, which was heavily criticized at introduction being an electronic camera

Yep, the same issue as with Leica - because it broke with tradition and pro (or any photography) had a hard time with the idea of having to carry around some very small batteries. As is a motor-equipped F2 didn't need those as well. The F3 was a very logical evolution from the F2 - keeping what had been proven to work and adding something that a lot of pros wanted at the time: automatic exposure (not for nothing did a lot of them added an EL or similar to their bag of F or F2 cameras).

 

I could say bad things about every Nikon film camera I ever owned (or even that ever was) - they were all products of their time and even the F6 is by now almost 1 1/2 decades old technology. What still surprises me is how long the F3 was produced - without ever been upgraded to eliminate the most glaring short-comings (flash sync speed, for example).

 

In hindsight, I could have and should have stayed with my single F3 throughout the film days. Or with my two FM2 bodies. I got the FAs, F4s, F5s rather late and could easily have done without either one of them. That money would have been a lot better spent on lenses. There had been good reasons to upgrade from my first camera, the FM. Very much less so for any film camera I "upgraded" to later.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

Both have by now been thoroughly established. Horses for courses.

 

There again, my dislike of it doesn't make it a bad camera-I'll freely admit that. I think I've beat up my chief criticisms pretty well-namely the meter and the display. With that said, I don't think I've ever seen a bad one.

 

The camera does have its good points, among them the absolute smoothest film advance that I've ever seen in a camera.

 

I've been told-although I don't know how true it is-that Nikon kept the F3 in production-because of some industrial products that shared components with the basic F3 mechanism. From what I understand, they had to keep a decent portion of the line going, so just figured "why not" on building the cameras since obviously there was a market for them. I'm sure you know this Dieter, but although Nikon's cameras and F-mount lenses are probably their most visible products, they're only a small fraction of what Nikon actually makes. When I was in grad school, my advisor spent $30K or so on a Raman microscope. Although the Raman "guts" were all made in France by Horiba, the microscope on which it was based and most of the auxiliary optics were(are) Nikon.

I've been told-although I don't know how true it is-that Nikon kept the F3 in production-because of some industrial products that shared components with the basic F3 mechanism. From what I understand, they had to keep a decent portion of the line going, so just figured "why not" on building the cameras since obviously there was a market for them.

Never heard of that one. The only production number for the F3 that I could find was from 1992 - about 3/4 million at that point. Don't know how many were produced between 1992 and 2001 when production officially ceased.

although Nikon's cameras and F-mount lenses are probably their most visible products, they're only a small fraction of what Nikon actually makes

I do know though I have to disagree on the "small portion" - at least at the present time (not so true during the film days).

 

Either in this thread or another, and certainly not for the first time, did I mention that the 80-20 weighing in the F3 took getting used to. In some later cameras, Nikon went to 75-25. I would have very much welcomed if the F3 had stayed at 60-40 and added a real spotmeter (like Leica did in the R3 and various cameras that followed). But at 12mm diameter, it wouldn't really be a spot anyway. So 80-20 was in essence some really heavily center-weighted metering. Never used 75-25 so I can't say whether it made a difference or not.

 

Matrix metering changed a lot over time - but even today there are quite a number of people that don't trust it or have put the effort into figuring out what it does and adapt to it. Personally, I only embraced it after some very helpful advice given by Arthur Morris himself.

I have the non-HP viewfinder on a F3, with a H focussing screen (if I recall well) - huge, bright, incredibly easy to focus. But I have no glasses, so the HP might be better in case you do need glasses.

The F3 was sold for 20 years. Production, according to Nikon Canada, ceased around 1994-5. Sales went on while remaining inventories thinned before the official cancellation in 2000. Recall seeing NOS F3 bodies at full price then collecting dust in camera shops in Toronto. What was the PJ camera of the 80s became a slow seller by the mid 90s with the shift to AF. Tried getting an early F3's dim LCD readout+circuitry repaired by Nikon Canada in 2004 but found the parts bins were mostly empty. Nikon stopped cranking out F3s for no reason other than low/no demand at least five years before their demise.

Either in this thread or another, and certainly not for the first time, did I mention that the 80-20 weighing in the F3 took getting used to. In some later cameras, Nikon went to 75-25. I would have very much welcomed if the F3 had stayed at 60-40 and added a real spotmeter (like Leica did in the R3 and various cameras that followed). But at 12mm diameter, it wouldn't really be a spot anyway. So 80-20 was in essence some really heavily center-weighted metering. Never used 75-25 so I can't say whether it made a difference or not.

 

I used a couple of Canon New F-1s a lot before I switched to Nikon, and still have a big soft spot for the camera. As the New F-1 and the F3 were roughly contemporary and aimed at the same market, I think comparisons between them are appropriate. Both have their good points that I like, but on the whole I prefer the F-1.

 

In any case, the metering on both the original and the new F-1 is a sort of interesting set-up where a semi-silvered area on the focusing screen directs the light to a metering cell at the back of mirror box butting up against the focus screen(incidentally, this arrangement means that the F-1s along with the FT, FTb, and a few other cameras require circular polarizers).

 

On the original F-1(along with the FT, FTb, Pellix, TL, TLb, TX), the metering would be considered a "spot" meter in Nikon speak, although Canon calls it a "partial" meter. It's a rectangular box that covers 12% of the frame area, but there is no metering outside this.

 

The New F-1 allows you to change the metering patterning by changing the focusing screen. On bodies that shipped with a plain prism, the standard screen was the same 12% partial as the original F-1. On bodies with an AE finder, the standard screen was center weighted averaging. The averaging is quite different vs. Nikons, though. Rather than having a defined area of higher weight, the weighting is more or less Gaussian with the maximum in the center(some bodies, the New F-1 among them, weight the bottom more). Screens are also available with a spot metering, which is 3% of the center(roughly the size of the split image). Of course, even though you can change the pattern, you have to change screens to do it. New F-1 screens carry a pattern designation consistent with other Canon screens, but also are preceeded by A, P, or S to indicate the metering pattern.

 

BTW, as a side note the T90 gives all three metering patterns without changing screens(and the partial meter is round rather than rectangular). The spot meter is also slick in that the camera will measure and average up to 9 points and then gives you an easy way to tweak the exposure in half-stop increments.

 

In any case, this isn't about Canons so that's neither here nor there. I guess my point is that-like I keep saying-I'd rather the camera just ignore everything outside the center than weight it so heavily.

I have the non-HP viewfinder on a F3, with a H focussing screen (if I recall well) - huge, bright, incredibly easy to focus. But I have no glasses, so the HP might be better in case you do need glasses.

 

I don't have too many issues with glasses and a standard finder, although the HP does make seeing everything a bit easier. The difference between the two actually isn't dramatic-the non-HP is 20mm. Most of the post-F3 pro SLRs along with mid to high end DSLRs are in the 21-23mm range, and again I find them comfortable. If I'm not mistaken, the F3HP has the highest eyepoint of any eye-level finder Nikon has made, and I think they realized it was probably overkill even for glasses wearers.

My first SLR was a Nikon F3HP. I still have it, and it remains my favorite body in terms of size and precision. I bought an F5 later on, but only used it about a year before going digital. It is a monster, and could be used to literally beat your way out of a mob. The F3 has the footprint of a Leica M, and a bright, 100% viewfinder. The high eye point (HP) finder is useable with glasses.

 

It shares the dorky flash connector with the F, but the shutter release takes a standard ISO cable release. The small battery lasts at least 2 years. I always considered the F2 butt-ugly, just ahead of the F4.

I don't have too many issues with glasses and a standard finder, although the HP does make seeing everything a bit easier. The difference between the two actually isn't dramatic-the non-HP is 20mm. Most of the post-F3 pro SLRs along with mid to high end DSLRs are in the 21-23mm range, and again I find them comfortable. If I'm not mistaken, the F3HP has the highest eyepoint of any eye-level finder Nikon has made, and I think they realized it was probably overkill even for glasses wearers.

 

That's interesting. I remember now that you said above that the standard F3 has a high point distance of 20mm whereas the FE has only 14mm. With the FE I have to push the glasses into my head with the camera to get a decent view and even then I need to wiggle my head around to see the four corners of the frame. If that's not necessary with the F3, then perhaps it's the camera for me. Here in Brazil in the used market, standard F3s in decent condition can be had for as low as R$600 (US$1 = R$3.16), where as the HPs tend to gravitate towards R$1200, albeit for serviced examples.

I have (so far)

 

Nikon S2

Nikon F

Nikon F Photomic T

Nikkormat FTn

Nikkormat EL

Nikon F2 Photomic (DP1)

Nikon N2020

Nikon N8008s

Nikon F80

Nikon F90

 

Of these I still prefer the Nikon F, F2, and Nikkormat EL. The F and F2 have such a marvelous mechanical feeliing, like antique Swiss watches. With film, I don't really find a working meter to be a requirement anymore (my Nikon F photomic is (like most of them by now) dead on arrival.

I have (so far)

 

Nikon S2

Nikon F

Nikon F Photomic T

Nikkormat FTn

Nikkormat EL

Nikon F2 Photomic (DP1)

Nikon N2020

Nikon N8008s

Nikon F80

Nikon F90

 

Of these I still prefer the Nikon F, F2, and Nikkormat EL. The F and F2 have such a marvelous mechanical feeliing, like antique Swiss watches. With film, I don't really find a working meter to be a requirement anymore (my Nikon F photomic is (like most of them by now) dead on arrival.

If the meter on your cameras dead on arrival then you didn't buy them new.

If the meter on your cameras dead on arrival then you didn't buy them new.

 

? ? ?

First of all, meters are not immortal and they can die even though you keep the camera

Second, how is anybody to buy any of these "new" these days?

Third, why does it matter?

My old kit at the end of the 20th c.

? ? ?

First of all, meters are not immortal and they can die even though you keep the camera

Second, how is anybody to buy any of these "new" these days?

Third, why does it matter?

[ATTACH=full]1211431[/ATTACH]

My old kit at the end of the 20th c.

 

Well if the meter didn't die when you bought it then it 's not dead on arrival.

People who bought a camera when it was current think about the camera quite differently than people who bought it after it's discontinued for a long time.

OK OK.... not DOA, in general, just sometimes on arrival to ME

People who bought a camera when it was current think about the camera quite differently than people who bought it after it's discontinued for a long time.

For sure. Most of mine cost little more than a fancy pizza, if that. The ones I did buy new did mean a lot larger initial investment. :)

... perhaps I'll do better with the Type K split focus screen. I wonder though if other models offer a more magnified field of view./QUOTE]

 

How about getting a magnifier such as the Nikon DK-17M (see review) to help out?

If you want to stick to manual focus lenses get a good F2 or F3. Either will work fine. I am 68 years old and wear glasses and do not have any problems focusing.